Quote:I see users seem to believe that things are handled unfairly, from my viewpoint I can't and won't make that determination. I don't know what anybody has a basis for even making such a ridiculous claim, except that they seem to believe that they should be privy to things that they should not be privy too. This not the coliseum and we aren't the Christians vs. the Lions. I assume that Ken is acting fairly and i have seen no evidence that he is not.

Skip

Okay, could you please give me a straight answer if I give you a straight question? Have you ever been banned temporarily and if "yes", how many times?

In my experience if you have rules that aren't visibly and demonstrably enforced they are ignored and then when enforced you get bad feeling about being "picked on".

In my view any moderation, temporary banning and permanent banning should be in the open and above board - that way every one can see that the rules are being enforced fairly and also if the community believe the enforcement to be too harsh they can make representation to get the ruling overturned.

In my experience if you have rules that aren't visibly and demonstrably enforced they are ignored and then when enforced you get bad feeling about being "picked on".

In my view any moderation, temporary banning and permanent banning should be in the open and above board - that way every one can see that the rules are being enforced fairly and also if the community believe the enforcement to be too harsh they can make representation to get the ruling overturned.

Just my 2 cents

Ritch

And I absolutely disagree with you, that's called simply beimng nosy in affairs that do not involve you. Ken is handling it absolutely appropriately.

And I absolutely disagree with you, that's called simply beimng nosy in affairs that do not involve you. Ken is handling it absolutely appropriately.

So in your opinion we should have all court sessions behind the closed curtains and no one should ever know (exept the judge and jury) why and how some one has been punished, if punished at all? Why all the secresy? Mankind have tried that sort of systems and noticed that it doesn't work at all (at least in so called developed countries). Open table would be the best option for my opinion. If someone gets banned, others should be able to see that and preferably also know why.

If someone is acting in such a way that the result is they are banned, then their behavior is having an impact on the forum community. It is important then that those affected know that some action is being taken.

Anger and resentment can build up if there is no visible way to see that action is actually being enforced. If someone is banned it should be made public to the community.

The benefit to open and pubic discipline is two fold. It will demonstrate to those affected by negative behavior that action has been taken. It might also act as a deterrent to those whose behavior is unacceptable to the community.

Quote:And I absolutely disagree with you, that's called simply beimng nosy in affairs that do not involve you.

That would be true if it wouldn't involve others. In real life when some one can continue bullying for years without any sort of punishing, it unfortunately involves all forum users and general atmosphere.

Personally I can be happy with however Ken prefers to do it. In some ways I can agree with Skip. In other ways I can see how knowing can help people get over the idea of unfair treatment in the forums. So while if the site was mine I would rather keep things behind the scenes as much as possible in such situations... if Ken decides he needs it to be more public I wouldn't argue about it.

But in my opinion we should wait and see how Ken's way will work out at this point.

You already know that I agree with the identification of a banned member, just a mention under the name and certainly not a Ken message telling "X had been banned today". But I can understand why Skip doesn't feel great about this and even more when some of you directly mention him. For one, if I would be named in this thread I wouldn't feel confortable and I would think the system is against me.

Public bans also have the advantage to put moderators in front of their responsabilities. If we had had a poll "Who must be banned in those forum ?", I'm quite sure Taro would not have been cited on the list, even at the bottom. Hidden bans are more censorship than moderation.

Quote:You already know that I agree with the identification of a banned member, just a mention under the name and certainly not a Ken message telling "X had been banned today". But I can understand why Skip doesn't feel great about this and even more when some of you directly mention him. For one, if I would be named in this thread I wouldn't feel confortable and I would think the system is against me.

While I see what you're saying I have to repeat what I've already said - If you (general, not specific) don't do anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.

I think the forum community should know who is permanently banned. Since this is the harshest of all punishment in the forums. We should also know why.

As far as posting restrictions, I don't think we should be told. Sometimes this is more of "go to your room and cool off". Hopefully, after a couple of days, they come back and participate in a proper way.

We do see what the moderators are doing. Every highlighted post that is edited or removed is a visible indication that moderators are there. Unfortunately, moderating all the topics 24/7 is a tedious job. We all wish that moderation would be quicker, and more even handed, but I do see an improvement in participation of the moderators. It seems to come and go at times.

As far as seeing Ken more, I think he keeps an eye on what is going on in the threads. He seems to pop in at unusual times. I would like to see more of a presence, especially when questions have arisen that do need an answer, then again, maybe he would like us to work it out (even though it has been proven time and again, that we can't )